Alex Massie - Spectator -

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

beta.spectator.co.uk/article/the-row-over-suzanne-moore-is-a-test-for-the-guardian-s-liberal-credentials

Excellent piece

I would c&p the best bits but they've done something clever to stop me doing that. It really is worth a read though.

Archived here archive.li/Q3Dv2

(Which lets me copy some quotes)

The Guardian is a great newspaper and it remains so even if, puzzlingly, more than a fifth of its workforce - both editorial and commercial - appear to think there is something appalling about working for a newspaper.

The signatories to the letter sent to Kath Viner, the paper’s editor, deplore what they deem the Guardian’s “pattern of publishing transphobic content” though, vexingly, the letter itself provides no evidence of this alleged transphobia and instead merely assumes it. According to Buzzfeed News which received a copy of the complaint - as, doubtless, was intended all along - staff at the paper were “deeply distressed” by the resignation of a transgender employee earlier this week who had, allegedly, received or overheard what are described as “anti-trans comments” from “influential editorial staff”. No details of what these remarks may have been has been furnished by Buzzfeed.

Thanks for sharing.

CP Scott, David Astor and Peter Preston would have no truck with this.

Get a grip Graun

I would c&p the best bits but they've done something clever to stop me doing that. It really is worth a read though

Very bloody annoying. The Spectator's website filled with people complaining about this beta version. It's crap.

I particularly liked this bit

A question arises, then: should the Guardian remain a newspaper at all? It is difficult to avoid the thought that 338 of its employees think it should not. As it is, many of them appear shocked by the discovery they have inadvertently wandered into a workplace in which they may discover a range of views. Perhaps they should reconsider their positions

(well it would be funny if it wasn't so serious to hear that so many employees of a paper believe that it should only publish their views on social issues).

'many of them [the letter's signatories] appear shocked by the discovery they have inadvertently wandered into a workplace in which they may discover a range of views'

It will be interesting to see the upshot of this. The article ends by asking if Suzanne Moore will be forced out. The fact 338 employees believe in Pravda like enforcement of groupthink is yet another nail in the coffin of this former newspaper....

I've just had a bit of a revelation.

All these kickbacks and the sudden sharp rise in angry wah-wahing is like an escalation of domestic violence.

For a long time, the Transgender Ideology Activists have had free rein to do and say what they like.

But now women are rising up and gaining strength in massive numbers, and our voices are being heard and agreed with more every day

The activists have realised their stranglehold is slipping and are escalating their tactics to try and regain control. This is the overt, definite slap to the face after the more covert, unprovable shove from the side.

The negging, the abuse, the projection. It's all so storybook abuser. They are starting to flail. Sunlight is beaming in and they can't close the curtains. Now more than ever we need to PUUUULLLL!

Excellent. Free speech is very much in danger. But thankfully bit as much as it was 5 years ago.

... but not as much...

"Sunlight is beaming in and they can't close the curtains..." YES!

What do they all want, those signatories? Should every article and opinion piece go out for a vote to see if it passes a non-transphobic threshold before its published? They’re all bonkers. They work for a newspaper FFS. It’s supposed to be a newspaper anyway, not a propaganda publication. The greatest blind spot in media currently is the belief that only Murdoch and News Corp/News Limited has an agenda and the liberal/left is immune to such.

Back in the day, The Guardian used to regularly host articles on all kinds of topics, and from different points of the political spectrum, without compromising its liberal identity. It was a much better newspaper for it. I wonder how many of those signatories were around when Ann Widdecombe had a column

Alex Massie references in this Spectator article the piece wrote for The Times on Tuesday which was somewhat overshadowed by the reaction to Suzanne Moore's article. It's well worth a read. I'm not sure if it was mentioned elsewhere on FWR, but if not it's here:

If gender is a spectrum, surely being trans is too

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/991999f4-5c9e-11ea-b7c6-f147bdd17b5b?shareToken=7e11d2221dd808b95d4470010254f180

I'm curious at the number of times he refers to the Guardian as a "great" newspaper. (I think it's a great newspaper too, though I realise I'm in the minority here.) If it really is a great newspaper, then it's beholden on its editor to do the right thing. If I were Kath Viner, I'd give those petulant signatories an ultimatum: stay and accept the plurality of views that a truly great newspaper is obliged to publish; or piss off and find a job somewhere else. They won't be missed - there are thousands of unemployed or freelance journalists who would give their eye teeth to work for the Guardian.

The greatest blind spot in media currently is the belief that only Murdoch and News Corp/News Limited has an agenda and the liberal/left is immune to such

Oh, my word, yes.

The funniest part of that letter is that it doesn't even say what they want. They are too frightened to ask for a right to replay as they do not have the arguments and equally scared to ask for censorship. Essentially their position is make it all go away or we will wet ourselves.

Kath Viner should just offer a right to reply, what will they do then?

This lot are nothing to be scared of - they have no brains and no courage. They are capable of nothing more than a collective sulk.

and a trans employee took the Times to court over alleged transphobic articles and and lost, so there is no case there.

Not only can you not copy any of the article, you can't Tweet it either. Seems a bit of an own goal.

Good article but I take issue with the suggestion that Karen White had a right to be housed in a women's prison. Also that White is referred to as a woman. Finally, using she for KW is a disservice to women.

But the rest was spot on. I used to work in a newspaper - it really is tragic that there are a group of people employed in a newspaper who think a newspaper can only publish things which they agree with - is this what social media has done to our ability to think critically?

Given one of the common factors in these people lives seems to be anime prounons on social PayPal.me or pattern links Rebecca Long-Bailey, I suggest they all go work on her constituency publications. They can be as single focused and biased as they like (and their lunacy can be neatly contained there, win:win!)

And if delusion reigns and she becomes Labour leader, they can shout into an even bigger void too!

I copied and pasted that bit okay - my secret viper powers must be extra strong today. Or the Xtian-fundie-right-wing prayer is working, who knows.

Earlier on Friday, Viner, along with chief executive Annette Thomas, emailed all staff defending its decision to publish pieces that “never shy away from difficult or divisive subjects” and pledging to represent “a wide range of view on many topics”.

The editor and CEO then castigated staff for publicly criticising the work of coworkers: “It is never acceptable to attack colleagues whose views you do not agree with, whether in meetings, on email, publicly or on social media.”

I liked this bit towards the bottom of Patrick Strudwick's Buzzfeed article. Sounds like Kath Viner doesn't intend to cave in. It was also interesting that the signatories to the letter didn't want their names published. Nothing like having the courage of your convictions.

Yes, we do indeed need to keep PUUUULLLLING.

Not only can you not copy any of the article, you can't Tweet it either. Seems a bit of an own goal.

I managed to tweet it by using the Twitter share button on the archive copy of the article. Surprisingly it actually works.

archive.li/Q3Dv2

A newspaper, particularly a great newspaper such as the Guardian, cannot afford to be an exercise in groupthink. Many of its employees evidently disagree; equally evidently they seem to be of the view that Suzanne Moore should not be permitted to speak her mind within the Guardian’s pages. The Guardian, the great newspaper of liberal England, cannot have room for Suzanne Moore. She must be driven out or otherwise made to feel this is a hostile environment and this must serve as a warning for others. Witches are for burning, after all.

As I say, this is a test of the paper’s liberal credentials. Will Suzanne Moore be hounded out? Will the paper’s editor be bullied by her own “disappointed” staff? Does the paper have, forgive me, the cojones to be the paper it can, should, and must be?

I’d like to think that if I were Kath Viner I would say ‘I stand with Suzanne Moore’ and I would ask her to write a column for Monday’s paper. And I would publish it on the front-page.

I can copy fine on IPhone! These are the final paragraphs